Search Results
29 items found for ""
- Openness Agreement | ANZCCART
Openness Agreement The New Zealand Board of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART), a Committee of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, has supported the development of an Openness Agreement on Animal Research and Teaching for New Zealand. A draft version of the Agreement went out for consultation in 2020/21, and was launched at the ANZCCART 2021 conference on 27 July 2021: Press release about launch of Openness Agreement Media coverage: New Zealand Herald ; Science Media Centre NZ ; Radio New Zealand ; Farmers Weekly New Zealand has long been committed to maintaining and improving high standards of animal welfare as well as undertaking world-leading research and teaching using animals. Those involved in research have an obligation to demonstrate and promote these values, and in order to be seen as trustworthy they must be open, transparent, and accountable for the research and teaching that they conduct, fund or support, including when the high standards they strive for are not achieved. Doing more to communicate the context in which animal research and teaching takes place, the work that organisations undertake to incorporate the Three Rs (the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of animals), the regulations that govern this research, and the systems that are in place to report and rectify poor practice is key. The objective of this Agreement is to ensure that the public are well informed about what animal research involves, the role it plays in the overall process of scientific discovery, how such research is regulated in New Zealand, and what researchers and animal care staff do to promote welfare, reduce animal usage and minimise suffering and harm to the animals. Several countries have now implemented (or are actively working on) formal ‘openness agreements’ to improve public understanding of animal research. Under such agreements, stakeholders make a public pledge to be more open about their involvement in animal research and explain details and reasons underlying it. The European Animal Research Association has several examples of openness agr eements. The longest established openness agreement is the UK Concordat on Openness on Animal Research . The UK Concordat has operated successfully since 2014 and now has over 120 signatories representing leading universities, research institutes, government agencies, funders and industry. Commit m e nts The Openness Agreement on Animal Research and Teaching in New Zealand sets out five Commitments that require signatories to take steps to be more open about the use of animals in research and teaching. The five commitments are: We will be clear about why and how we use animals in research and teachin g. We will enhance our communications with the media and the public about our use of animals in research and teaching. We will enhance our communications with tangata whenua about our use of animals in research and teaching. We will be proactive in providing opportunities for the public to find out about research and teaching using animals. We will report on progress annually and share our experiences. View the agreement here: ANZCCART Openness Agreement on Animal Research and Teaching in New Zealand – September 2023 Openness Agree m ent Annual Report Signatories report annually on their progress and share experiences: 2022 An nual Report: Download (Press Release ) (infographic ) 2023 Annual Report: Download (Press Re lease ) (infographic ) Signatories The signatories to this agreement are: If your organisation would like to join the Agreement, please contact: anzccart@royalsociety.org.nz
- general-info
Information about animal research in New Zealand New Zealanders’ Attitudes to Animal Research in 2023 A recently conducted study reveals New Zealanders’ perspectives and knowledge on the use of animals in scientific research, testing, and teaching. The study was conducted on behalf of the New Zealand board of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART NZ). You can read the report here: ANZCCART_Animal research report Final .pdf Download PDF • 3.37MB ANZCCART Press release: New Study Reveals New Zealanders' Views on Animal Use in Scientific Research and Teaching Science Media Centre expert reaction to the study can be read here . The use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand Animal use in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand is strictly controlled under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 . Any person or organisation using animals must follow an approved code of ethical conduct, which sets out the policies and procedures that must be followed by the organisation and its animal ethics committee. Further information about the regulation of animal research is available from the Ministry of Primary Industries . Records of the annual numbers of animals used in research, testing and teaching have been collected since 1987, and record animals that have had manipulations involving the normal physiological, behavioural, or anatomical integrity of the animal by deliberately subjecting it to a procedure which is unusual or abnormal when compared with that to which animals of that type would be subjected under normal management or practice. This can involve exposing the animal to any parasite, micro-organism, drug, chemical, biological product, radiation, electrical stimulation, or environmental condition; or enforced activity, restraint, nutrition, or surgical intervention; or depriving the animal of usual care. Proportion of animals (per type) used in research, testing and teaching in 2022 From 1 January 2018, the definition of ‘manipulation’ was expanded to include the killing of an animal for research, testing or teaching on its body or tissues, and the breeding or producing offspring that have potentially compromised welfare due to breeding (for example, to research some hereditary medical conditions). All animals reported in this new category are required to be treated with the same duty of care as animals used for research and teaching. Reasons for animals being bred but not used might include: Wrong sex for the specific research project (this is because the sex ratio of offspring can often not be controlled prior to birth). Creating or maintaining genetically altered lines (not all offspring have the required genetic alteration). Number bred was over and above what was needed (exact size of litters or number of offspring born are usually unpredictable). Sufficient numbers are needed to sustain animal colonies, as well as ensure adequate diversity and sufficient timely supply for research and teaching purposes. ‘Sentinel animals’ used for health screening of other animals in the laboratory, whose condition hints towards any subtle health issues in the lab that could widely impact other animals’ welfare. The animals can also be useful after death in teaching and training, or by storing tissues from the animals which can be used in future research. This may reduce the number of animals that need to be bred and used in future. Statistics on New Zealand’s use of animals in research can be found here: 2022 , 2021 , 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 Infographics on this data can be found here: 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 The definition of animal, however, varies from country to country: In New Zealand it includes any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, octopus, squid, crab, lobster, or crayfish, including any mammalian foetus, or any avian or reptilian pre-hatched young, that is in the last half of its period of gestation or development, but excludes any animal in the pre-natal, pre-hatched, larval, or other such developmental stage (other than those indicated previously). Marsupial pouch young are also considered animals. In Australia it includes any fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and cephalopods, but with some variation by state. In some States it also extends to lobsters, crabs or crayfish. In South Australia, a license is not required to use fish for research purposes. In the US , it includes warm-blooded animals, but excludes birds, rats and mice bred for use in research. In the EU , it includes live vertebrate animals and cephalopods, including independently feeding larval forms and foetal forms of mammals. Institutional Codes of Ethical Conduct under animal welfare legislation Before institutions in New Zealand are permitted to use animals for research, testing or teaching, they must apply for a licence from the government. The licence is called a ‘Code of Ethical Conduct’. This system is unique to New Zealand. Each institutional Code sets out the conditions and rules for animal use. Codes vary between organisations, depending upon the nature of the scientific activity. These Codes offer insights into how organisations value animals used for scientific or teaching purposes. In the interests of transparency, ANZCCART requested in 2015 that these codes be made available for public scrutiny. In response to our request, the institutional codes of ethical conduct approved by the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries that were current in 2015 (n=21) were made available from the FYI website , with an additional code available here . [Please note that the codes for Massey University, New Zealand Association of Science Educators and the University of Canterbury are not included on the FYI website as they are already available on their respective institutional websites.] In 2021 the ANZCCART New Zealand Openness Agreement has encouraged all signatories to make their codes publicly available on their institution’s website. ARRIVE and PREPARE Guidelines ANZCCART is supporting the adoption of the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting the findings of research projects using animals, and the PREPARE guidelines for planning research using animals. More information on these guidelines can be found here: ARRIVE , PREPARE . ANZCCART supports and encourages the re-homing of research animals as an alternative to euthanasia, wherever possible. ANZCCART Newsletters You can sign up for the ANZCCART Newsletter here . The latest editions can be seen here . Frequently asked questions: 1. What regulations exist for animal research in New Zealand? New Zealand law mandates that researchers must apply to an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) to gain approval for using animals in research, testing, and teaching. These AECs are also tasked with monitoring approved research activities. The composition of AECs includes a veterinarian, a scientist, a member of an animal welfare advocacy organization (e.g., SPCA), and a layperson with no involvement in animal research. This diverse membership provides a broad perspective on animal welfare. The government, while not directly involved in AEC decision-making, regulates animal research by reviewing the codes of ethical conduct that AECs and researchers operate under, oversees these AECs and requires annual reporting from the organisations that have them. 2. Is cosmetic testing on animals allowed in New Zealand? Testing on animals for developing, making, or testing a cosmetic or an ingredient that is intended exclusively for use in a cosmetic is explicitly banned in New Zealand under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, 2015 amendment. 3. How are animals chosen for research? Animals are selected for research based on the specific needs of the study and the suitability of different species to provide relevant data. The selection process is governed by ethical considerations, aiming to use non-sentient, or non-living organisms where possible and to minimize the number of animals used. Researchers must demonstrate that no viable alternatives exist and that the potential benefits of the research justify the use of animals. 4. Are there alternatives to using animals in research? Yes, researchers actively seek alternatives to animal testing, such as cell-based models, computer modelling, and other technologies that can reduce or eliminate the need for animal use. This effort aligns with the Three Rs: Replacement of animals with non-animal methods, Reduction in the number of animals used, and Refinement of techniques to reduce impacts. 5. How can the public learn more about animal research? The public can learn more about animal research through various trusted sources, including animal welfare organizations, regulatory bodies, and research institutions. Many of these organisations support openness about use of animals in research and teaching as signatories to the Openness Agreement on Animal use in Research and Teaching in New Zealand. They provide educational resources online, offering insights into how animal research is conducted, regulated, and how it contributes to scientific and medical advancements. Engaging with these sources can provide a balanced view of the ethical considerations and the importance of animal research in certain contexts. Resource links The following resources are available on the use of animals in research, testing or teaching in New Zealand: What is ANZCCART? (flyer) National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) website National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) website Animal welfare in NZ (Ministry for Primary Industries) Guide to the Animal Welfare (Ministry for Primary Industries) Animal Research Saves Lives (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 1.8 MB, 14 pages) Three Rs Poster (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 6.7 MB, 1 page) ANZCCART Newsletters Alt web (resource database hosted by Johns Hopkins University) SPCA New Zealand Culture of Care (A NAEAC guide for people working with animals in research, testing and teaching) (PDF, 428 kb, 6 pages)
- Information for New Zealand Teachers
Resources ANZCCART has a variety of resources available for teachers and students to learn about ways that animals are used in research, testing and teaching. Teaching and learning about Māori knowledge of animals and how Māori concepts can inform animal ethics Open-access digital resources are available on the Science Learning Hub – Pokapū Akoranga Pūtaiao: · Māori knowledge of animals ; · Māori concepts for animal ethics . A Māori medium e-version is also available to download: Roy 180 Compositestudent_Digital .pdf Download PDF • 7.63MB The resources are written by Professor Georgina Tuari Stewart, a Pūtaiao education expert from AUT, and Dr Sally Birdsall, a primary science teacher educator and academic from University of Auckland. Caring for the animals we use in research and teaching ANZCCART has produced a resource called “Caring for the animals we use in research and teaching”. The centrepiece of this resource is a DVD which provides a series of interviews with scientists who use animals in their research. This DVD is an excellent resource for generating class discussion and debate around the use of animals in research and teaching. The research topics discussed on the DVD are: research into developing anti-cancer drugs (presented by Professor Bill Wilson); genetic causes for obesity (presented by Dr Kathy Mountjoy); the effects of pre-natal nutrition on lambs (presented by Professor Jane Harding); the use of pain relief on farms for procedures such as castration and docking of lambs’ tails (presented by Dr Craig Johnson); the effects of the gene kisspeptin on puberty and fertility (presented by Professor Allan Herbison); development of the Xcluder Pest Proof Fence which is in use at Maungatautari (presented by Dr Tim Day); legislation governing the use of animals in research and teaching (presented by Professor Don Love and Dr Sally Birdsall). The video clips from the DVD can be downloaded by teachers from the following web link . A password will be required and will be available upon request to teachers ( contact ANZCCART NZ ). A compilation of interviews on these topics, narrated by Dr Jessie Jacobsen, the 2007 MacDiarmid Young Scientist of the Year (now called the Prime Minister’s MacDiarmid Emerging Scientist of the year), is also available. A set of activities has been developed to accompany each of the interviews for Years 9-10 students. They are designed to encourage discussion about the ways in which animals are used in research, as well as having a literacy focus. Each set of activities has links to the Nature of Science strand and to relevant contextual strands in the revised New Zealand school curriculum together with suggested ways of developing relevant key competencies. If you would like a copy of the DVD, please contact ANZCCART NZ . NCEA Resources ANZCCART (NZ) has supported the development of four NCEA assessment tasks that have received the Quality Assured Assessment materials trade mark (QAAM) from the NZQA for NCEA Achievement Standards (Biology 1.2, 2.2, and 3.2), which integrates biological knowledge to develop an informed response to a socio-scientific issue. The four resources are: Biology 1.2 (AS 90926) Animal research: What’s a life worth? – NCEA Level 1 – Internal Assessment Resource Biology 2.2 (AS 91154) Animal research: The best thing for human medicine and animals? – NCEA Level 2 – Internal Assessment Resource Biology 3.2 (AS 91602) Animal research: The ethics of using animals for research and teaching in New Zealand – NCEA Level 3 – Internal Assessment Resource Biology 3.2 (AS 91602) Animal research: Predator proof fences – NCEA Level 3 – Internal Assessment Resource Each of the tasks is available as a ‘ready to use’ package and contains: The achievement standard Teacher guidelines for and conditions of assessment The assessment task The assessment schedule Planning notes for teachers and suggested resources These teaching resources are not available on-line, but can be sent to teachers upon request ( contact ANZCCART NZ ). A student resource to accompany these tasks, Using Animals in Science: Student Resource, is available to download here . Three Rs Booklets A series of booklets have been produced that illustrate how the Three Rs are being used in scientific research. Cell-based Disease Models (replacement) Computer Assisted Learning (replacement) Mannequins and Dummies (replacement) Alternatives to shellfish toxicity testing (replacement) Fireflies to the rescue (reduction) Mathematical models (reduction) Tissue sharing (reduction) Simple ingenuity (refinement) Non-Invasive Methods (refinement) Living syringes (refinement) Oil emulsified gels (refinement) Links to Other Resources Other resources are also available here: Using animals in science , student resource (ANZCCART publication) (PDF, 2.8 MB, 22 pages) Animal research saves lives, questions and answers (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 1.8 MB, 14 pages) Animal ethics resources on TKI website DEMOCS discussion game (from EdinEthics, UK website) SPCA New Zealand
- Researchers
Information for New Zealand Researchers and Tertiary Education Researchers, technicians or tertiary teachers are often directly responsible for animal welfare. The following information has been designed by ANZCCART to assist these groups when they are conducting research, testing and/or undertaking teaching involving animals. Animal ethics and legislation in New Zealand Please click to follow link for information on ethics and legislation in New Zealand . Understanding Animal Ethics Committees Please click to follow link for information on Animal Ethics Committees and the criteria for assessing applications . Assistance with statistics in designing studies with animals Appropriate research study design is an important part of reducing the numbers of animals used in research and testing. We strongly recommend the free interactive course on designing animal experiments provided by Michael Festing. Designing and reporting animal experiments ANZCCART (NZ) endorses the PREPARE and ARRIVE guidelines for the designing and reporting of animal experiments involving the use of animals. The guidelines are intended to improve the planning and reporting of research using animals – maximising information published and minimising unnecessary studies. PREPARE guidelines for planning animal experiments can be found here . ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal experiments can be found here . The ARRIVE reporting guidelines have been endorsed by over 1,000 scientific journals including nature, and the journals of the Royal Society Te Apārangi. A 3-minute video about the PREPARE guidelines can be found here . Animal welfare Please click to follow link for information on managing pain and anaesthesia in research animals. Alternatives to using animals in research, testing, or teaching Please click to follow link for information on alternatives to using animals in research, testing, or teaching. ComPass Animal Welfare Training This free online course covers the Australian Code and NZ Guide and welfare issues relating to animal use in research and teaching. Successful completion of Phase one of the course and its quiz fulfills the mandated basic training needs of researchers and teachers using animals as well as members of Animal Ethics Committees (AEC) in Australia and NZ (except AEC members in Victoria who are required to complete the Animal Welfare Victoria training). The aim is to standardize and augment the training offered for animal users in research and teaching throughout Australasia by offering this free online interactive and resource-rich course to all who need this training. For the course link and more information . Resource bank and recommendations on best practice There are ANZCCART resources and Links to r esources from other organisations that contain information and resources about animal welfare and alternatives to using animals. If you would like to add information or resources to this database please contact us . Information updates Our regular newsletter ANZCCART News contains updates on animal welfare, legislation and alternatives to using animals. If you are doing work that has animal ethics approval you should receive this newsletter (via email). If you have not been receiving a copy of ANZCCART News please contact us . Archived editions are available here . ANZCCART Conferences ANZCCART holds an annual conference which discusses animal welfare in the context of research, testing and teaching. The conference location varies and usually is held two successive years in Australia followed by one year in New Zealand. For more details please see our conference page . ANZCCART Contacts for questions If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact us .
- About Us
About Us ANZCCART (Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching) is two independent organisations in each of Australia and New Zealand committed to providing leadership in addressing ethical, social, cultural and scientific issues relating to the use and welfare of animals in research and teaching. We have a shared Vision, Mission and Role in society. ANZCCART’s VISION To be the leading source of information and advice concerning the ethical, social, cultural and scientific use of animals in research and teaching. MISSION STATEMENT ANZCCART’s corporate mission and objectives are to promote: Informed open discussion and debate within the community when considering ethical, social, cultural and scientific issues relating to the use of animals in research and teaching, by providing a neutral forum. Excellence in the use and welfare of animals supplied for or used in research and teaching. Responsible scientific use of animals. The 3Rs principle of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement as they apply to the use of animals for scientific purposes. Strategic partnerships to contribute to the education and training of scientists, students , animal care staff, members of Animal Ethics Committees, and the broader community. ANZCCART’s ROLE ANZCCART seeks to achieve these objectives, first by providing an ongoing focus to the social, ethical, cultural and scientific issues involved, second by providing a forum for discussion of these issues and third by facilitating access to relevant specialist advice and resources. Further, through its publications and activities ANZCCART is a source of information for the general public about how animals are used in research and teaching in Australia and New Zealand. ANZCCART New Zealand Established as a standing committee of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, the Board of ANZCCART New Zealand comprises representatives from the researc h, animal welfare, animal ethics and education communities. ANZCCART New Zealand is an advisory organisation that provides guidance and information to a wide range of stakeholders, including Animal Ethics Committees (AEC), scientists, teachers, regulatory authorities, granting agencies, government, animal welfare organisations , the media, and the general public. ANZCCART New Zealand promotes and supports the commitment to the principles embodied in the New Zealand legislation regulating the use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand ( Animal Welfare Act 1999, Part 6 ). AIMS Our primary aims are to: Promote open discussions around the social license for, ethical and cultural considerations related to, and scientific validity of the use of animals in research and teaching. A pillar of this is the ANZCCART Openness Agreement on Animal Use in Research and Teaching. Encourage the highest standards of care, consideration and responsible use of animals for research and teaching purposes. . Act as a focal point for information and advice concerning the ethical and scientific use of animals in research and teaching. Advocate for the "Three Rs" – replacement, reduction and refinement of animals in research and teaching – as a guiding principle. Identify, enable, and enhance strategic partnerships that develop capacity by contributing to and supporting the education and training of scientists, students, and the broader community. Support the development and inclusion of mātauranga Māori in relation to the care and use of animals in research and teaching, and alignment of policy and practice with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. VALUES In pursuing our aims, we are guided by the following values: Rigour: We apply rigorous standards to our discussions and recommendations, ensuring that they are based on the best available evidence and informed by the perspectives of all relevant stakeholders. Openness: We are committed to transparency and openness in our processes, fostering an environment where challenging and informed debate can take place. Respo nsiveness: We aim to respond effectively to emerging ethical, social, cultural, scientific issues and developments relating to the use and welfare of animals in research and teaching. Inclusiveness: We actively engage with diverse stakeholders, including the research, animal welfare, and education communities, to ensure that our work is comprehensive and well-rounded. Collaboration: We work collaboratively with various organisations , i nstitutions, and individuals to achieve our objectives and contribute to a more responsible and compassionate future for both animals and humans. Partnership: We support and affirm the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including the bicultural partnership it establishes between tangata Tiriti and tangata whenua, in all our aims and work. ANZCCART NZ Board Terms of Reference 2022 .pdf Download PDF • 234KB 2023 ANZCCART NZ Annual Report .pdf Download PDF • 385KB Our People New Zealand Board Members: Emeritus Professor Pat Cragg (Chair), retired, formerly University of Otago (2022-2024) Chair of the ANZCCART New Zealand Board since April 2020. Pat is a physiologist, and from undergraduate training, a zoologist; her research area covered cardiorespiratory function and control in health and disease; her breadth of teaching is typified as a co-editor of a long-standing physiology textbook. Prior to retirement in May 2018, she held appointments at the University of Otago, for instance as Head of Department of Physiology, Associate Dean Academic Health Sciences and Acting Dean of School of Biomedical Sciences. Pat was on the University's Animal Ethics Committee for 27 years and on the ANZCCART New Zealand Board for 18 years, with four years as Deputy Chair, as well as seven years as the NZ representative on the ANZCCART Australian Board. For many years Pat was Secretary of the Physiological Society of NZ and Chair of the Scientific Committee of the Otago Medical Research Foundation (OMRF). she now Chairs the OMRF Council. From mid-April 2019 to the end of January 2022, she returned from retirement to be the Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic at the University of Otago. Dr Arnja Dale (Deputy Chair), Chief Scientific Officer, Royal New Zealand SPCA (2022-2024) Arnja has over 20 years working in the field of animal welfare science in New Zealand and overseas. Arnja is the Chief Scientific Officer at SPCA New Zealand. Prior to joining SPCA, Arnja was a Senior Lecturer in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law, leading numerous research projects, and also led the animal welfare investigations training programme at Unitec. She is a current member of the ANZCCART NZ, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). Arnja is passionate about animal welfare science and changing the hearts and minds of the next generation through evidence-based education initiatives. Arnja lives in Auckland with her husband, 3 children, and her dog and cat. Professor Ngaio Beausoleil, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University (2023) Ngaio is Professor of Animal Welfare Science and Co-Director of the Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, NZ. She has been active in research, teaching and scholarship in relevant areas of animal physiology, behaviour and welfare science for 20 years. Her research employs behavioural and physiological methods to investigate various aspects of animal welfare in both domestic and wild animal species. A key strength is her systematic, science-based approach to evaluating animal welfare impacts and she has been closely involved in the evolution of the Five Domains Model for more than a decade. Ngaio provides scientific support, advice and research to governments, various animal industries and veterinary professional bodies in New Zealand and around the world. As well as being a member of ANZCCART, she is Chair of the New Zealand Veterinary Journal editorial board, an independent scientific expert on the Wellington Zoo Animal Welfare Committee and Massey liaison to the UK Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. She gets a real buzz out of working with postgraduate research students. Life outside of work includes children, horses and downhill mountain biking. Dr Sally Birdsall, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education, University of Auckland (2022-2024) Sally Birdsall works at the Faculty of Education and Social Work in the University of Auckland Waipapa Taumata Rau. She teaches and carries out research in science and sustainability education with a focus on pedagogy – the theories, approaches and strategies that can be used to teach and learn effectively. In her work with ANZCCART New Zealand, she has led the development of two resources for secondary students where they can learn about the way scientists work with animals to produce scientific knowledge and think critically about the interconnectedness of science and society. Sally is currently working on another project that aims to produce a resource to help students to explore Māori principles in relation to animal ethics. With Professor Georgina Tuari Stewart (Ngāti Kura, Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu, Pare Hauraki), she is working with the Science Learning Hub on material that primary and secondary students in both English-medium and kura will be able to use to deepen their understanding of mātauranga Māori and Western science perspectives about animals. Outside of work, Sally spends time with her grandchildren and working on environmental restoration projects, both in the reserve next to her house and in the community. Vanessa Borman, Animal Ethics Coordinator, AgResearch (2023-2025) I have an MSc in Toxicology and experience in laboratory animal research, science administration and animal ethics. My inspiration is a love of science, animals and working with people. My current role is AgResearch Animal Ethics Coordinator which has provided the opportunity to travel and meet interesting people doing amazing things. I bring energy and action with a unique perspective on science and ethics. Associate Professor Justin Dean, Department of Physiology, University of Auckland (2021-2023) I study brain development, how it can be affected by premature birth, and ways to try to prevent or restore deficits in brain development. I was always fascinated by science, particularly the brain. I love the intellectual freedom associated with running a research laboratory and the training and teaching of younger scientists. After my PhD, my wife and I lived in Sweden and the USA as part of my postdoctoral training, and had children in those countries. Another highlight was the opportunity to return to NZ with family to start faculty research and teaching position at the University of Auckland. I am involved in coaching kids sports (cricket, netball, rugby), and also enjoy surfing, running, and cooking. Dr Mike King, Senior Lecturer, Bioethics Centre, University of Otago (2022-2024) I’m Head of Department at the Te Pokapū Matatika Koiora the Bioethics Centre, within the Dunedin School of Medicine and the Division of Health Sciences at the University of Otago. Bioethics Centre staff and students research, teach and learn about of the rights and wrongs (that is to say, the ethics) of healthcare and the biosciences. A lot of my work focuses on the ethics of animal use in research. I used to do animal research, which was the beginning of my path to my present career in bioethics. I come from the small town of Te Puke in the North Island of New Zealand. It has a sign saying it’s the kiwifruit capital of the world and has an enormous slice of kiwifruit on display to back it up. Mr Tipene Merritt, Kaiārahi Rangahau Māori, University of Canterbury (2023-2025) I am the key advisor of Ko Aotearoa Tēnei (Wai 262) - Māori interests in research concerning native flora and fauna; have Governance role of an Australian Co-operative Research Centre, Future Farm Industries; and develop mutually beneficial research relationships between Māori communities and Universities. I am looking to add a Māori viewpoint and a research management perspective to the social, ethical and scientific use of animals in research and teaching. I am completing a PhD on the interface between Mātauranga Māori and the Intellectual Property Rights system. Further to this I am an active member in hapū/iwi affairs and I also practice yoga. Stacey Parbhu, Animal Welfare Science Manager, Ministry for Primary Industries Stacey is currently leading the Animal Welfare Science team at MPI. As part of this role, she works alongside the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) and a team of technical and science advisors to ensure good governance to support RTT activities across New Zealand. She has been active in the care of companion animals, research animal husbandry, animal project management and animal facility management in a variety of positions since 2007, including AgResearch and Massey University. In 2017, Stacey moved to Te Herenga Waka | Victoria University in Wellington, to operate their brand-new small animal facility, eventually becoming the facility manager. In 2024 Stacey finalised her master’s thesis which utilised a mouse IVF model, providing her a greater understanding of the challenges and complexities many organisations will encounter with animal replacement techniques Ian Saldanha, Biosecurity & Animal Welfare Advisor, Cawthron Institute (2023-2025) I have been involved in the lab animal industry for over 10 years. Before taking up a position at the Cawthron Institute in Nelson, I was the Head of the Animal facility at the Malaghan Institute in Wellington. This is where my passion for working with animals grew. During this time, I served on the executive committee for Australia New Zealand Laboratory Animal Association (ANZLAA) for a few years where I used this opportunity to support those that work in the animal science field and meet others from the industry. One of the highlights in my career was getting the opportunity to travel the world, visit other animal facilities, and gain an understanding about how they operate. Outside my profession I have a love for the outdoors in particular running. I enjoy travelling, meeting new people, and of course spending time with my family. ANZCCART Fellow (observer) Ms Morgan Heslop, PhD student, Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University (2023-2025) My research expertise is in animal welfare science, and I am particularly interested in how we understand the inner lives of animals. I was inspired to pursue a career in research when I learned of an entire scientific discipline dedicated to answering questions I had been asking myself for years! What I love most is discussing welfare and ethics with people who share my enthusiasm – or who can be convinced to! Our members (funders): Along with Unitec|Te Pūkenga. If you are interested in becoming a member, please contact ANZCCART (NZ). History of ANZCCART ANZCCART, the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, was established on the 1st of January, 1993, as a result of a collaborative effort between the Australian Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ACCART, established in May 1987) and various New Zealand authorities, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (now known as the Ministry for Primary Industries) and the Royal Society of New Zealand (now Royal Society Te Apārangi). In New Zealand, this followed decades of efforts by the Society to promote and progress the humane use of animals in science. The Australia-New Zealand collaboration aimed to address the growing need for ethical and scientific guidance in the use of animals for research and teaching purposes in both countries. In New Zealand, ANZCCART operates as a committee of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, maintaining strong connections with its Australian counterpart. New Zealand formed a standing committee of the Royal Society and joined ACCART to form ANZCCART in 1993. The joint name was to emphasise united efforts in promoting the ethical use of animals in research and teaching across both nations.This partnership has allowed the organizations to share resources, expertise, and knowledge while working towards common goals. For a comprehensive understanding of ANZCCART's history, we recommend reading the article “ Reflections on the use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand – a historical perspective. ” by Dr David Bayvel et al. (2011). (PDF, 653 kb, 4 pages) This article offers valuable insights into the development of ANZCCART and the progress made over the years in improving the ethical and scientific use of animals in research, testing, and teaching in both Australia and New Zealand. Resource links about ANZCCART and animal welfare in New Zealand The following resources about ANZCCART and animal welfare in New Zealand are available: Animal Research Saves Lives (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 1.8 MB, 14 pages) Animal welfare in NZ (Ministry of Primary Industries) ANZCCART Annual Report (PDF, 1.5 MB, 46 pages) ANZCCART Newsletters Culture of Care (NAEAC guide for people working with animals in research, testing and teaching) (PDF) SPCA New Zealand The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) website The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) website What is ANZCCART (2017)(ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 428 kb, 1 page)
- 2014 ANZCCART Essay Competition Winner
Conversations to Improve Animal Welfare in Research and Teaching (by Katherine Reid) Society is composed of individuals and personal ethics are a choice made on an individual basis. These individual choices coalesce to form the societal ethic. The societal ethic becomes the basis of the acceptance or rejection by society of a practice such as the use of animals in research and teaching. It is by influence on the individual that science gains its approval. These opinions of the individual are formed from numerous and nebulous factors. Because the knowledge and experience of the individual is the basis for their decisions, the influence of science must be to affect that knowledge and experience. That influence is exerted in conversation. Through literal and figurative conversations ideas are exchanged and the reasons for decisions are considered. These conversations take place among the members of society, some of whom are themselves scientists. Many of the most important conversations are commonplace and mundane. Other conversations are dramatic taking place in print and media. Conferences, seminars and meetings are the venues for more conversations. But always conversations occur between individuals who are members of society. In some conversations the individuals are scientists. Sometimes scientists talk to non-scientists. And non-scientists will converse among themselves. All of these conversations form the basis for the personal decisions on ethics which provide continued acceptance of the use of animals in research and teaching. From individual knowledge and personal experience conclusions are drawn and this is the basis for personal ethics. The knowledge and experience of individuals is extraordinarily diverse. For scientists, the training and experience of the discipline is a strong influence on their personal decisions about animal use. Part of scientific training regarding the basis for animal use includes the principle wherein cost to animal health and welfare is squared against the benefit derived from the use. Reduction, refinement and replacement are equally important principles which seek to maximise this equation and gain the greatest benefit for animal cost. These are good principles and their application is an important ethical justification for continued use of animals in research and teaching. But these principles must not be employed without careful consideration and understanding of the meaning behind them. Unconsidered reliance upon conventional principles is not sufficient to ensure continued acceptance by society. In application such principles must be vibrant and living practices and not be allowed to stagnate and harden into unconsidered dogma. Scientists are also individuals within society and not a separate or opposed entity. Scientists embrace scientific values and these values become part of the basis for societal acceptance. But not all scientists share identical background and variance occurs among the opinions of scientists as to the ethics and acceptance of animal use. Acceptance of animal use by scientists is a part of societal acceptance and a significant influence but not the entirety. By thought and discussion, these concepts will be kept alive in the minds of scientists. These principles will serve as some of the topics for conversation. As with scientists, acceptance by non-scientists within society is based on the particular knowledge and experience of the person. There is also a factor of visceral reaction and emotional perception of the question. The particular acceptance or rejection by an individual is generally not based on direct experience of the realities of animal use and welfare of animals. It is also highly unlikely that the individual decision about acceptability of animal use is based on understanding of the benefits gained. Essentially, non-scientists do not apply the same principles that scientists are trained to use. So upon what does the average individual base their decision? The cynic will say that non-scientific opinions are based on emotional and irrational reactions. They will contend that the emotional reaction is due to lack of scientific education or direct experience. They will further put forth that the average member of society is unwilling and uninterested in education or a greater appreciation of the realities of animal use. This same cynic will likely conclude that the acceptance or rejection of animal use by society should be based on strict application of scientific rationale and valueless science. This, in their opinion, is the only way to derive the single correct conclusion in a given situation. The fallacy of this argument is that even scientists cannot agree on correct application of the scientific method and rational evaluation by multiple parties does not always reach the same conclusion in any given case. Furthermore, science is not without emotion. Scientists too have an emotional response but training reduces the influence of this. The response is reduced but not eliminated. Scientists are human and, however logical and calculating, they still feel emotions about the work in which they engage and the animals which are used in that work. Misuse of animals in any context will affect scientists as human beings. That reason alone is sufficient to motivate scientists to carefully consider the welfare of animals used in their work. An emotional reaction is also not entirely irrational. Human emotions have evolved for survival. Emotions in favor of improving animal welfare can be argued to be self-protective. Humanity existed as an agrarian society for millennia and depended upon hunting since before the advent of agriculture. Before humans ate animals and kept warm in their skins they depended upon an ecosystem which relied upon healthy and vibrant animal populations. The inherent desire to protect animal species is not entirely irrational and can be thought to be based upon the human symbiosis with the other animal species. Conversation is the tool by which each party comes to appreciate the emotional reaction of the others. The pragmatist will say that animal use is a strictly mathematical cost versus benefit equation where the pain or damage inflicted on animals must be weighed strictly and mathematically against the benefit derived. The evidence of benefits to society gained by the use of animals in research and teaching is undeniable and exhaustive. The average individual, a critical decision maker about the acceptance of animal use is largely unaware of the extent to which animal use has benefited them. Even scientists are not completely informed about the extent to which their lives have benefited from animal based research. Scientists are also insufficiently informed of the negative aspects of animal use. The apparent equation becomes imbalanced and does not reflect the reality which it attempts to judge. The ability to solve the equation accurately is further impaired by the lack of understanding on both sides of the equation; cost and benefit. The effects on society for good or ill will not be determined except in the context of history. It is impossible to know how the benefit from animal use will weigh ultimately. In practicality, lack of understanding of animal physiology and management makes accurate evaluation of animal welfare precarious. Knowledge of animal pain and the experience of suffering is changing and improving continually. Judgment can only be based on the most recent understanding and the future will undoubtedly show that understanding to be deficient. Conversations among individuals will weigh this balance in a way that accounts for, evaluates and incorporates the grey areas. One current conversation puts forth that greater transparency in animal based research would benefit public understanding and thus promote acceptance. The thought is that if society were more clearly aware of the realities of animal use then they would be able to make informed decisions. Decisions would be based on logical evaluation and understanding of animal welfare. It is unlikely that greater awareness by non-scientists of the realities of research for animals will improve the welfare of animals. Society is generally not prepared to learn how the sausage is made. There are harsh techniques and uncomfortable realities of animal use of which non-scientists are not aware. Showing society the harm that is done without sufficient realization of the benefit derived is likely to create a strong and justified negative reaction to the techniques employed in research. This negative reaction by some members of society would not support the continued use of animals, even research for the benefit of animals. Lack of continued veterinary research would impact animal welfare negatively. Veterinary research is absolutely necessary for better understanding of the needs and physiology of animals. If improvements in the welfare of animals used in research and teaching are to be made, veterinary research is a necessity. By the fact that the superficial appearance of animal use would likely be uncomfortable to the uninitiated it can be concluded that there are important improvements which must be made in animal welfare. This reinforces the importance of societal acceptance of animal use and motivates the need to engage in conversations. To reprise the three R’s principles of animal use, conversation represents an important tool in refinement of animal use in teaching and research. The purist will put forth that the acceptance of society is based upon the quality of research and that only from high quality research can relevant results be obtained. They will further add that any benefit to society is only derived from research that is applicable and relevant to society. These individuals will contend that both sides of the cost-benefit equation are dependent on quality of work done and analysis performed. The purist forgets that conclusions derived from data are subject to interpretation. These conclusions are in turn based on analysis of raw data and that analysis is subject to the style and influence of the primary investigator. It can be startling to realize how science is not, in actuality, fact. Society believes that an observed phenomena, measurable and recordable, must be real. Society and science both accept that once something is published in peer reviewed literature, it becomes practical fact. Better scientists see the influence of analysis and interpretation and understand the process of scientific investigation in elucidation but not proof. Science contends that this method is the best available representation of reality. This is a leap of faith, though oddly logical. By faith, science becomes religion and subject to dogma. But any observation, measurement and recording is still only subjective. Scientific investigation into cognitive neurosciences and the mechanisms of consciousness reveal that reality is perception. An observed phenomena is subject to perception and is an individual experience. Observation therefore is a personal experience, different for every individual. Measurement and recording equally are interpretations which require analysis. Science itself undermines its own essential tenants and the dogmatic are forced to resolve the discrepancy. As science develops and progresses human knowledge of consciousness, the faith in science as fact will be challenged. Acceptance by society will change to accommodate. Conversation will benefit all parties as understanding of the mechanisms of human cognition change. There are direct implications to the ethics of animal use for human purposes. These will come forward as science reveals more about the nature of human and animal consciousness. New understanding will change how all view animal welfare and the relationship between humans and animals. It will be a radical change in thought for all parties and continued conversation will be essential for all to resolve the issues that will surround the new understanding. Understanding of the subjectivity of perception promotes humility. The intent here is to demonstrate the variety of perspectives and opinions in order to appreciate the reasoning behind individual decisions. It is also to show that no single perspective is the correct approach. The acceptance of society is a synthesis of varied perspectives with the advantages and disadvantages of all. The function of conversation is to express, develop and share positions, examine fallacies and failures as well as the strengths and to organically create a community and society opinion from the mosaic of individual perspectives. Engaging in conversation has several important functions. It is necessary to learn and experience the opinions and perspectives of others as well as learn important knowledge from the experiences of others. It is also necessary to debate and be coerced into articulation of logical arguments. Arguments require support with reasons and rationale and communication of these forces their examination. By explaining opinions to others, insight is gained on both sides as to the reasons for decisions. This practice moves decisions away from dogmatic authoritarianism to insightful, and carefully considered choices based in reason with due respect given to emotion. Conversation also induces self-analysis and promotes a critical evaluation of personal practices and beliefs. Most will have to examine their own practices if they are to confidently argue for those practices to others. As an example, a scientist who cannot comfortably discuss the animal techniques used in their lab with others including non-scientists will be forced to begin to examine those techniques. They will have to critically evaluate if they are in fact based on ethical decisions about animal use. The mutual exchange aspect of conversation also serves to communicate ideas between parties with different experience. Participants in the conversations gain empathy for others’ point of view and in return allow empathy from others. These benefits will ultimately be crucial to ensure the continued use of animals in research and teaching. Conversation and debate with non-scientists is important for the scientist as a member of both society and of the scientific community to which they belong. It is all too easy for any person to only engage with those who share their ideas and values, such as scientists discussing animal use only among other scientists. Such conversations in isolation are unlikely to produce fruitful progress and will not serve to improve the acceptance of animal use by society. Because science is an integral part of society and functions within society, scientists cannot remain isolated and removed from that society. Conversations with the broader group will promote a greater understanding of society’s values by members of the scientific cohort. If science is to continue to function as a valued part of society, scientific values will need to incorporate societal values. This conversation will also work for promoting understanding of scientific values by non-scientific portions of society. It is the propagation of this greater mutual understanding which is one of the key functions of conversation and critical to the continued use of animals in research and teaching. Conversation must also take place within the scientific community. There is no doubt that for the greatest benefit to be derived with the least cost to animal welfare, science must be of the highest quality. The debate must continue as to what constitutes high quality, relevant research. Individual scientists will need to embrace the importance of research quality and move beyond mere acquiescence to authority. Individual scientists need to determine for themselves what constitutes quality research and implement this because it provides the greatest benefit, not because they suffer penalties otherwise. Conversation within scientific society will be necessary for individuals to understand what is quality science, how to implement good practice and the importance of this. Exchange of ideas, as occurs in conversation also serves to improve education of all participants. The cynic was convinced that society was unwilling to self-educate and keep themselves informed. By conversation, the uninformed gain valuable insight and improve the breadth of their experience. In turn, through conversation, the cynic will hopefully come to understand that scientists are humans with emotions and subject to emotional reaction. The pragmatist will see that the mathematical equation is not so easily weighed but will learn from conversation that cost versus benefit is highly complex. The purist will come to understand that while high quality science is in fact essential, defining what constitutes high quality is difficult and will require continued evaluation through debate and conversation. The actual conversations do not need to be elaborate or formal. They will take place naturally and develop organically. People will congregate and talk at school or on the bus. The issues discussed will be the topic of conversations at scientific meetings and committee hearings as well as at conferences and in classrooms. Conversations will take place in the elevator and in lecture halls. The quiet will listen patiently while the talkative ramble on. The erudite will relish the opportunity to debate and all interested parties will finish with a slightly different perspective than they started. What is important for the purpose is that no one shrink from the conversation. The topic can be difficult and emotional at times. Many will not have thought about the topic and others will be excessively enthusiastic. But all must consciously engage and participate. There is no excuse for not participating. Every member of society has a responsibility to converse. This is because all of society will derive benefit from the good usage of animals in research and teaching. For the same reasons, all will be impacted if society withdraws its acceptance of animal use or if that animal use is poor. Acceptance of animal use in research and teaching is based on the decisions and opinions of the individual. Many and varied factors influence those decisions and opinions. The breadth and depth of experience and knowledge which underpins the perspectives of individuals is vast and only continues to grow, expanded by continued scientific research and investigation. There is no single act or policy that can guarantee that society will continue to accept the use of animals. There are in place many sound principles as well as irrational dogmatic beliefs. It is an overwhelming task to try and resolve the varied experiences and opinions of a society composed of such varied individuals. Free societies do not dictate morals but rather allow free and open debate to determine ethics. The mechanism of this debate is the simple conversation. By conversation, progress will continue and the opinion of society will adapt to meet the needs of that society. The place of scientific research and the use of animals in science will continue to develop organically with that society as it progresses. The simple conversation will serve to bind science within society and determine the future of animal use in research and teaching.
- Animal Research in New Zealand
Information on Animal Research in New Zealand for Schools It is the responsibility of everyone who uses animals to ensure that they are only used when absolutely necessary and that when they are used they are treated with care and respect. If an animal is used for research, testing or teaching the work must be conducted in line with the Three Rs (from the ideas of Russell and Burch in their 1959 book “The principles of humane experimental technique”, available through the Johns Hopkins Alt Web website): Replacement : where possible an alternative to animal testing must be used. This could include a computer model or cell culture (where animal or human cells are grown in a laboratory). Reduction : the minimum number of animals must be used to gain good experimental results. This means that experiments must be well designed and that as many experimental variables as possible are controlled (i.e. that you only change one thing in your experimental group as compared to your control group). This means that the research or test will provide quality data which can withstand statistical analysis. Refinement : the animals should not suffer. At all times the health and well-being of the animal should be a priority. As much as possible the animal should be able to live normally, free from any pain and suffering, throughout the research, teaching or testing process. ANZCCART booklets providing examples of how these principles have been applied are available here . Resources on the use of animals in research, testing or teaching for schools The following resources are available on the use of animals in research, testing or teaching: Using animals in science , student resource (ANZCCART publication 2019) (PDF, 2.8 MB, 22 pages) Animal research saves lives, questions and answers (ANZCCART resource 2013) (PDF, 1.8 MB, 14 pages) Download Three Rs poster (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 6.7 MB, 1 page) Animal welfare in NZ (Ministry for Primary Industries) National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) website National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) website Alt web (resource database hosted by Johns Hopkins University) SPCA New Zealand Animal ethics resources on TKI website DEMOCs discussion game (from EdinEthics, UK Website)
- Animal Ethics in New Zealand Schools
Applying for Animal Ethics Approval This page contains information about why you need to apply for ethics approval and how you can apply. When do you need to consider applying for animal ethics approval? You need to consider applying for animal ethics approval when using animals in teaching or in an investigation or experience when the animal is being ‘manipulated’. This means that you are changing the animal’s normal needs, like what it eats and drinks, where it lives/sleeps or things it does (like its type of toys) in some way. This type of change (manipulation) is when ethics approval is needed and is required under New Zealand’s law called the Animal Welfare Act. Ethics approval means that a special group of people, such as science teachers and animal welfare experts have reviewed the way that your scientific experiment or investigation with animal(s) is being carried out. When they review it, they check that what is planned will not harm the animal(s) and its good health is maintained. If this group thinks that what is planned will not harm the animal(s), they will grant ethics approval. Who might need to apply for animal ethics approval? Any teacher and/or science technician using or caring for animals in a learning or class situation should check with the New Zealand Schools Animal Ethics Committee if they need approval. Any student carrying out an investigation or experiment that involves animals should check if they need approval. The Application Process If you do need to apply for animal ethics approval for a teaching activity or for your science fair project, you need to complete a form and submit it to an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). The New Zealand Association for Science Education has their own AEC for teachers, science technicians and students who can approve your application. For more information, visit the New Zealand Schools Animal Ethics website . In general, the AEC wants to ensure that the animals that you use will be well treated and subjected to the minimal amount of harm or disruption. All manipulations must be carried out under the umbrella of the animal welfare principles of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement). When you are writing your animal ethics application, make sure you outline the benefits of carrying out the experiment or investigation and also fully consider the harm to the animal(s). The AEC will make a risk-benefit assessment. This means that if the risk of harm to the animals high (for example, the experiment is quite invasive) then the benefits must also be high (for example, the potential of a new medicine). However, if the risk is low (for example, playing music to your fish) then the potential benefit does not need to be very high (for example, it might help you and your class better understand how well fish hear). You also need to meet the normal husbandry requirements for the animal including providing food, shelter, warmth, safety and room to behave normally. Lastly, you need to show that you have considered the Three Rs animal welfare principles in the design of your experiment or investigation. Links: Ethical guidelines for school students (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 108 kb, 1 page) NZ Association of Science Educators (NZASE) website on animal ethics
- Contact Us
Contact Us ANZCCART New Zealand c/o Royal Society Te Apārangi PO Box 598 Wellington, 6140 New Zealand Phone: +64 4-472 7421 Email ANZCCART Australia C/- The University of Adelaide SA 5005 Australia Phone: +618 8313 7585 Website Email How to Contact ANZCCART (NZ) Board Members for Media Comments ANZCCART (NZ) board members are generally happy to be contacted for comment. Please contact the ANZCCART (NZ) Executive Officer at the Royal Society Te Apārangi ( anzccart@royalsociety.org.nz ) and they will forward your request to the appropriate member.
- ANZCCART Conference 2001
ANZCCART Conference 2001 Joint ANZCCART/NAEAC Conference on 28-29 June 2001 Held at the Novotel Tainui Hotel, Hamilton, New Zealand NB: this page was written in advance of the conference Exploring the relationships between ourselves, animals, and the environment is the theme of the conference jointly organised by the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) and the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). Issues to be addressed include the interdependence and interconnectedness of all life, the images of science and scientists, relevant legislation, dealing with new technology, fish research, and what could and should statistics or the popular media tell us. In understanding these relationships and challenging our beliefs, this conference will help to map the intricate connections between humans, animals, and the environment. It will therefore be valuable to anyone interested in how we learn, communicate, and evolve the relationships between ourselves and the natural world. This conference will be of special interest to those involved in education, in science in both the public and private sectors, and to those interested in teaching, animal welfare, the environment, ethics, and the communication and regulation of community expectations. The programme will provide both local, Australian, and international perspectives. ANZCCART aims to provide leadership in developing community consensus on ethical, social, and scientific issues relating to the use of animals in research and teaching. NAEAC provides independent advice to the Minister of Agriculture on policy and practices relating to the use of animals in research, testing and teaching. Programme Thursday, 28 June 8.15 am Registration 8.45 am Opening Session 1 Primary and secondary education Focus: To consider how our interaction with animals and the environment has changed and how we might develop better interactions through education 9.00 am Cam Reid Oration: Learning, animals and the environment — an animal rights perspective Mr Gary Reese, Compassion in World Farming, London; former member of SAFE, Auckland (by videoconference) 9.40 amInfluences on learning Mrs Barbara Benson, Dunedin College of Education 10.20 am Morning tea 10.50 am Consequences of the continuity between the human and biological worlds Professor David Penny, Massey University 11.30 am Science in the classroom Mr Peter Trim, Independent consultant 12 noon Lunch Session 2 Tertiary education and research and teaching Focus: To consider the influences which impinge on the acceptability of animal-based research, testing and teaching and how we might acknowledge and incorporate them 1.00 pm Public perception of scientists: Frankenstein and Einstein Professor Frank Griffin, University of Otago 1.40 pm The next generation of scientist Dr Catherine Morrow, AgResearch Ruakura 2.20 pm Alternatives and the future Professor Bruce Baguley, Auckland Cancer Society Research Institute 3.00 pm Afternoon tea 3.30 pm The Animal Welfare Act 1999 – impacts and issues Professor John Marbrook, Deputy Chair NAEAC 4.10 pm Skeletons and sovereigns in the cupboard — learning from history Dr Mark Fisher, AgResearch Poukawa Friday, 29 June Session 3 Future challenges Focus: To consider the challenges that we could use to build an appropriate learning environment for our interaction with animals and nature 8.30 am Moving forward with the media Dr Mark Matfield, Research Defense Society, UK (by videoconference); Dr Kay Weavers, University of Waikato 9.25 am Democratically modified science Ms Ronda Cooper, Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 10.05 am Morning tea 10.25 am The next Animal Welfare Act Hon Pete Hodgson, Minister of Research, Science and Technology 11.10 am Fish as experimental animals Good for science and fish? Dr John Baldwin, Monash University, Melbourne 11.40 am “Back off man, I’m a scientist” Dr David Scobie, AgResearch Lincoln 12.20 pm Lunch Session 4 Care and regulation Focus: To consider how society should move forward in dealing with the regulatory aspects of animals and the environment. 1.00 pm Dealing with the emerged technologies Dr Judy McArthur-Clark, Biozone, UK 1.40 pm Living with the legislation Dr Donald Hannah, ERMA NZ 2.20 pm Care beyond regulation Dr Barbara Nicholas, Christchurch 3.00 pm Close of conference Conference details Venue The 2001 ANZCCART conference was held jointly with the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). The venue is the Novotel Tainui Hotel, Alma Street, Hamilton — located on the banks of the Waikato River in the Central Business District of Hamilton.
- Animal Comfort
Animal welfare What is animal welfare and whose welfare is considered? Animals are recognized as sentient beings in New Zealand law. This means they have sufficiently complex nervous systems to support flexible and adaptive behaviour and, importantly, a range of different experiences and feelings that they can interpret as good/positive or bad/negative. In New Zealand, animals considered to be sentient are mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, octopus, squid, crabs, lobsters and crayfish (see Information about animal research in NZ for more information). The welfare of an animal depends on its mental state – the negative or positive experiences it is having at a particular point in time. Negative experiences might include pain, discomfort, breathlessness, nausea, fear, anxiety, hunger, thirst and even loneliness, frustration or boredom, depending on the kind of animal. Good experiences might include feelings of pleasure, comfort, safety and companionship, again depending on the kind of animal. The animal’s mental state is influenced by its perception of both its physical health and its environment. How can we understand an animal’s welfare state to make improvements? Often in research, it is necessary to perform procedures that may cause animals to experience negative states like fear, pain, nausea, or breathlessness. In addition to compromise during procedures, animals may also experience compromise in their home environment, during day-to-day husbandry and handling, preparation for, as well as recovery from, the procedure. An animal may be more likely to experience welfare compromise because of its age, physical state, particular type or breeding. When using animals in research, testing, and teaching, we have a responsibility to promote good welfare, meaning minimizing welfare compromise due to negative experiences and enhancing welfare by providing opportunities for positive experiences. The people responsible must consider the ways that their use of, or interaction with, the animals may impact their welfare. Another way to think about this is to ask “What mental states will the animal experience in this situation, in this physical condition or due to this procedure?”. We can understand the degree to which welfare is compromised by evaluating the quality, likelihood, severity/intensity and duration of any and all negative experiences; we do this using observable or measurable indicators of mental states, including behavioural, physiological and neurophysiological measurements. Likewise, we can understand the degree of welfare enhancement, primarily by evaluating animal’s behavioural responses to opportunities that arise or we provide. One model we can use to organize investigations of welfare and the evidence for an animal’s mental experiences and its overall welfare state is the Five Domains Model. This is an internationally recognised welfare assessment framework developed in New Zealand. It reflects modern understanding of animal welfare by breaking down the factors that influence welfare into four categories (Domain 1 Food and water; Domain 2 Physical environment; Domain 3 Health and physical status; Domain 4 Behavioural interactions) and includes the associated mental experiences in a fifth category (Domain 5 Mental states). With care, the Model can be used for any species in any context. It allows the user to apply their own knowledge of the animal species to identify potential sources of welfare compromise and opportunities for welfare enhancement. How can we improve the welfare of animals used in RTT? The Three Rs The Three Rs provide guidance on ways to minimize welfare compromise for animals used in RTT by avoiding animal use altogether (Replacement), reducing the number of animals that might experience welfare compromise (Reduction) or reducing the likelihood, severity and/or duration of negative mental experiences arising due to the ways animals are used and managed (Refinement). Providing opportunities for positive experiences, while continuing to minimise negatives, is another way to refine animal use. For more information about the Three Rs see… Minimizing welfare compromise (Refinement) depends on what the problem is for the animal. Importantly, animals must be conscious to be having any mental experiences, including pain, so using general anaesthesia to make an animal unconscious is one way to reduce welfare compromise during a procedure. Pain can also be alleviated or reduced by using drugs that block or reduce pain signals (local anaesthetics or analgesics). However, pain-relieving drugs won’t reduce hunger, thirst, breathlessness, nausea, fear or loneliness. So, the remedy must be appropriate for the problem, and the effectiveness of the intervention should be evaluated using methods like those described above. For example, fear due to human-animal interactions can be reduced by avoiding or refining handling procedures, while anxiety might be relieved by manipulating animal housing or social groupings. Likewise, such changes in animal housing and management can provide animals opportunities for positive experiences. Promoting these feelings wherever possible can enhance the welfare of animals, as well as making them easier to handle and work with. Resources for minimizing welfare compromise: Beausoleil, N., & Mellor, D. (2015). Introducing breathlessness as a significant animal welfare issue. New Zealand Veterinary Journal , 63 (1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.940410 Resources for enhancing welfare: ·Baumans, V. (2005). Environmental Enrichment for Laboratory Rodents and Rabbits: Requirements of Rodents, Rabbits, and Research. ILAR Journal , 46 (2), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.46.2.162 Rault, J.-L., Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., & Hemsworth, P. (2020). The Power of a Positive Human–Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare. Frontiers in Veterinary Science , 7 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.590867
- External Resources
Links to resources from other organisations International organisations promoting the ethical care and use of laboratory animals ANZCCART (NZ) has memberships or partnerships with four international organisations that promote greater openness, or the ethical care and humane use, of animals in research, in order to learn from international best practice. AAALAC International In late September 2009, ANZCCART New Zealand was approved for membership in the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care international (AAALAC International). AAALAC International is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals in science through voluntary accreditation and assessment programs. AAALAC stands for the ‘Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care’. International Council for Laboratory Animal Science In 2005, ANZCCART New Zealand was approved for membership in the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS). ICLAS is an international scientific organisation dedicated to advancing human and animal health by promoting the ethical care and use of laboratory animals in research worldwide. European Animal Research Association In 2020, ANZCCART signed a MoU with the European Animal Research Association ( EARA ) which reflects a shared commitment to greater openness, improved communications and constructive public discourse in relation to animal research in Australia and New Zealand. Understanding Animal Research In 2020, ANZCCART became a member of Understanding Animal Research ( UAR ), which seeks to achieve a broad understanding of the humane use of animals in medical, veterinary, scientific and environmental research. There is now a UAR Oceania. External newsletters on the use of animals in research, testing or teaching: New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industry’s Welfare Pulse Feature articles This section includes a selection of external articles that are relevant to researchers, teachers and students who use animals in their work. If you know of an article that should be included in this resource bank please contact us with the full reference. Squeaky clean mice could be ruining research . Nature (2018):Apr 5;556(7699):16-18 Should research animals be named? Science (2015): Vol. 347 no. 6225 pp. 941-943 Line of attack . Science (2015): Vol. 347 no. 6225 pp. 938-940 Other relevant publications Quality of blood samples from the saphenous vein compared with the tail vein during multiple blood sampling of mice . Laboratory animals 44.1 (2010): 25-29. Social and physical environmental enrichment differentially affect growth and activity of preadolescent and adolescent male rats . Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science: JAALAS 47.2 (2008): 30. The use of sodium lamps to brightly illuminate mouse houses during their dark phases . Laboratory animals 38.4 (2004): 384-392. The therapeutic potential of regulated hypothermia . Emergency Medicine Journal 18.2 (2001): 81-89. Resource bank and recommendations on best practice ANZCCART aims to promote best practice whenever animals are used for research, testing or teaching. This resource bank contains articles, newsletters and information that will help you keep up to date with the latest developments in animal welfare. Resources and websites that provide information on alternative methods in animal research, testing and teaching. Resources and websites that provide information on animal welfare . Statistical design for animal welfare. We strongly recommend the resources on designing animal experiments provided by Michael Festing . Alt web (resource database hosted by Johns Hopkins University) Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Parliamentary Council Office website) ANZCCART Conferences on animal welfare in the context of research, testing and teaching Culture of Care (A NAEAC guide for people working with animals in research, testing and teaching) (PDF, 393 kb, 6 pages) Ethical guidelines for students in laboratory classes involving the use of animals and animal tissues NZ_Ethical_guide_2007 .doc Download DOC • 105KB Guide to the Animal Welfare Act (Ministry of Primary Industries website) SPCA New Zealand The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) website The National Animal Welfare Committee (NAWAC) website